With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

Nuclear Energy Rising At The Expense of Renewable Power

Just before the Fukushima disaster hit three years ago, nuclear energy had been standing tall. But the earthquake and giant waves knocked out the legs from under the fuel source, killing Japan’s nuclear ambitions as well as that of some other nations that had a robust nuclear power presence.

The tsunami turned Japan’s world upside down. But it also dazed a global community that had planned to crank up the nuclear dial a notch. Some countries such as Germany, Italy and Sweden have chosen to scale back their nuclear production and to increase their renewable generation to help the continent meet its carbon reductions goals. But others, like China and the United Kingdom, are revving up their nuclear programs.

By 2020, Europe is supposed to have cut its carbon emissions by 20 percent — something for which it is set to do, with a little help from the global recession. After that, however, it may switch to give individual countries more flexibility by setting an overall European Union target of 40 percent by 2030.

Why the proposed changes? Renewables have high costs and they are a challenge to integrate on to the grid. The continent’s biggest green producers, Germany and Spain, have tempered their spirit given that the annual price to customers is about $32.5 billion in both countries.

Both Germany and Spain get about 23 percent of their energy from renewables. But Germany plans to cut those subsidies by $2.5 billion while Spain will slash $3.5 billion.

At the same time, utilities with offshore wind energy interest in the UK are scrapping their construction plans: IberdrolaIberdrola’s ScottishPower won’t build what was to be the world’s largest offshore wind farm, saying that it would be infeasible. And the Guardian newspaper reports that Germany’s RWE and British-owned CentricaCentrica have both pulled out of potential offshore wind deals.

“It is our view that the Argyll Array project is not financially viable in the short term … As construction techniques and turbine technology continues to improve, we believe that the Argyll Array could become a viable project in the long term,” which is defined here as 10-15 years, says Jonathan Cole, head of offshore wind development for ScottishPower.

What now? Nuclear energy is getting off of its knees and it is perched to rebound, at least in certain parts of the world: In the United States, four reactors at two plants are under construction while the U.S. Department of Energy has been increasing funding for advanced nuclear research and development.

Meantime, China, Korea, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the UK are advancing nuclear production to address air pollution and climate concerns. China has 20 nuclear plants today and 28 more under construction — 40 percent of all projected new nuclear units, says the World Nuclear Association. A similar dynamic exists in the UK, which approved the construction of two reactors at Hinkley Point that will provide 7 percent of the UK’s electricity.

“It will hopefully open the flood gates and unlock further investment in the sector, introducing a new phase of activity to deliver a fleet of new nuclear reactors generating low carbon electricity in the UK,” says Daniel Grosvenor, head of Deloitte’s UK nuclear practice. “It also shows that the UK can attract the international investment our energy sector desperately needs.”

The deal, which was announced in October 2013 must still receive permission from the European Commission: Electricite de France will own 40-50 percent while another French national, ArevaAreva, will own 10 percent. Meantime, two Chinese national entities will own 30-40 percent. A shortlist of companies will buy the remaining 15 percent. The goal is to be operational by 2023.

Significantly, some high profile climate scientists are hitting the lecture circuit and publishing their views to express that higher percentages of nuclear energy are essential to combating climate change. They, in turn, are asking their environmental brethren to embrace this position — and to quit viewing nuclear energy from the perspective of 1979 when the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred.

All this is happening after the release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change latest findings, which have concluded with 95 percent certainty that humans are mostly responsible for global warming. In 2007, it made the same assertion but with 90 percent assurance.

“Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels,” write the scientists, who include James Hansen at the Columbia University Earth Institute.

The Environmentalists’ long-standing view of nuclear energy has “relaxed” but it has not changed. Renewables, they say, are both cheaper and safer.

In this country, they point out that five nuclear plants have been forced to close in the last year. Three of those are because the facilities cannot compete with cheaper combined cycle natural gas facilities and two have been tied to ongoing technical issues, one of which involved uncommon vibrations and a small radiation leak.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

We are now seeing the effect of a well-orchestrated Pro-nuclear, industry-wide media blitz that is Global in nature. Seen another way, this is an attempt by the nuclear industry to save itself from the increasing penetration of Solar (of all flavors) into the World’s energy generation marketplace. Because Solar is growing rapidly in both residential and now large-scale Utility sized installations, Solar continues to acquire ever more of the total Energy generation market and especially the percentage of energy generation that used to belong to and was tightly controlled by Big Nuclear. Additionally if the cost to decommission aging nuclear power plants was much lower and there was a place to “hide” nuclear waste, many if not most of our older nuclear power plants that are still in operation today would now be either fully decommissioned or well along in the process. Today, it is now not only both far less expensive and much less RISKY to generate energy with Solar (of all flavors) and/or natural gas fired generation but the ratio of installation and operation costs of Solar/Natural Gas vs. Nuclear continues to decline almost monthly!

Unless there is a major scientific breakthrough in nuclear physics, nuclear generation will only be installed where Government and/or elected Leaders place what is good for their nuclear industries ahead of what is good for their people. Examples of this forced use of Nuclear: 1. In Japan, where the people clearly do not want their reactors restarted, yet their Leaders/ Utility Gangs push nuclear upon them. a. The Yakuza and the Nuclear Mafia: Nationalization Looms for TEPCO http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/12/yakuza-and-nuclear-mafia-nationalization-looms-tepco/46803/#disqus_thread b. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/japan-takes-control-of-tepco-in-10-year-plan-to-revive-profit.html c. Former Prime Minister of #Japan: We’ve been lied to, #nuclear experts lying to us…They’ve been telling a pack of lies http://enenews.com/former-prime-minister-weve-bee d. NHK News Giant in Japan Seen as Being Compromised http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/news-giant-in-japan-seen-as-being-compromised.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

2. In the UK, where the proposed Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant project has been shown to be more expensive that installing solar. a. Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant To Get Twice The Rate As Solar PV From UK Government http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/30/hinkley-c-nuclear-power-plant-get-twice-rate-solar-pv-uk-government/Double Standard For Nuclear Energy & Wind Energy In UK? http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/09/uk-nuclear-price-uk-wind-energy-price/ b. Solar Power Cheaper Than Nuclear In Cloudy Old England http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/19/solar-power-cheaper-than-nuclear-in-cloudy-old-england/ – RH7GXpCcfKFgUrkB.99 3. In the USA, where multi-=billion dollar cost over runs, safety issues, nuclear waste and decommissioning costs have continued to plague the US nuclear industry. a. “Cheap” nuclear power a myth, suggests economist http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013/dec/29/ticker-cheap-nuclear-power-myth/? b. Nuclear Energy Operators Say Market Stacked Against Them http://shar.es/RstOJ c. Fukushima – it can happen in America – new book http://shar.es/Rs5DX

To be fair, sometimes those in the Nuclear Industry do get it right but what they have to say is not welcomed by their associates, even though it is the truth: “Clearly we’re witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time.” - AREVA Executive VP March 21, 2011

Complaining about the Nuclear Industry while loving the Renewables Industry makes no sense to me. Besides GE (and other companies) manufacture for both industries anyway (pot and kettle).

Also, linking to biased renewables websites doesn’t sway anyone. The question to ask is which mode of power generation will free us from CO2 dependence. I have yet to see working renewables schemes that provide power and growth without being accompanied or linked to CO2 producing power generation modes like natural gas from here into the future.

We HAVE LONG SEEN the effect of a well-orchestrated ANTI-nuclear, WORLD-wide media blitz that is PROMOTED BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS.

In the interest of freedom of information, I fixed that for you. Especially since you, a soldier on the front lines of the coal, oil and gas industries’ army, wouldn’t have told anyone the truth.

this is an attempt by the nuclear industry to save itself from the increasing penetration of Solar (of all flavors) into the World’s energy generation marketplace.

Most flavors of solar cannot generate at night, and none that can are remotely competitive with fossil fuels. Your “solar” grid is primarily powered by gas-fired turbines. You call yourself a “nuclear safety educator”, but the 8 who died in the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion alone total 8 more than the civilian deaths from radiation releases from commercial nuclear reactors in the G7 for all time, including Fukushima Dai’ichi. It is a funny sort of “safety educator” who ignores greater threats to “save us” from a lesser one, especially since the GHG emissions from the essential backups for the “renewables” will destroy the food supplies for hundreds of millions.

Unless there is a major scientific breakthrough in nuclear physics, nuclear generation will only be installed where Government and/or elected Leaders place what is good for their nuclear industries ahead of what is good for their people.

According to the climate scientists, we have perhaps 10 years to get the world on a path of declining carbon emissions or the stable and temperate climate on which our civilization and very food we eat depend will be badly disrupted by the effects. There is ONE country which has taken a fossil-based electric grid and cut its carbon emissions far enough to achieve stability. That country is France, and its grid does not run on your precious solar energy. It runs on uranium.

Sweden is an example of a country with near-zero grid-related carbon emissions. It saved its last 4 major rivers from being dammed for hydropower by adding nuclear energy to its grid.

You stand opposed to the one technology that’s PROVEN to get GHG emissions close enough to zero to save the climate. You would fiddle with “renewables” while the world burns.

To be fair, sometimes those in the Nuclear Industry do get it right but what they have to say is not welcomed by their associates, even though it is the truth: “Clearly we’re witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time.”

If that’s the worst that 1960′s nuclear technology does, and 2010 nuclear technology is better, it means that we are wasting our time worrying about nuclear dangers. What we need to worry about is fossil dangers, and start eliminating them by replacing them with nuclear power as fast as we can.

Congratulations, you have achieved The Most Notable in Recent Memory award for Chernobyl deaths denial. The guy who was impaled to the roof at INL? The guy who was mentioned in that Yankee magazine article on the small lab in NYS? …

Fukushima 3 was a nuclear explosion, and it launched 10′s of tons of radioactive material effectively aerosolized into the jet stream. Proof is here. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html

“In the United States, four reactors at two plants are under construction…”

This is a trope, not some sort of realistic statement about a U.S. nuclear renaissance.

Four plants were recently closed. Five plans to boost output were shelved in 2013. The only plans for anything in the U.S. are those four reactors and if they all open, U.S. nuclear will be lucky to maintain its share of power generation. It may well not do so in the next decade.

Advanced designs are decades from commercialization.

None of this is to say research is bad; we ought to keep looking at Gen IV plants, thorium designs, etc. But we are nowhere near a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. and any claim otherwise is absolutely a myth.

Mark I enjoyed reading your description of the US nuclear Industry, which I think was with one exception, not only fair but unbiased toward both sides of the “Should the US Build Any More Nuclear Power Plants (NPP)?” debate.

The BIG issue I and an increasing number of others have with new NPP’s is the ongoing creation of ever more radioactive waste (☢W). The generation of large amounts of radioactive waste (☢W) is just another form of pollution which is just one of the reasons that prevents NPP from being GREEN, despite what many of those that support building NPP claim. This topic, which is glossed over in most NPP discussions is referred to, if radioactive waste (☢W) is mentioned at all, as a separate issue because it will be “someone else’s problem way down the road”. Because voters realize that they (and their children, their grandchildren, and all of their future descendants) will have to be the ones paying for it. In reality, it is such a BIG PROBLEM that it’s name is like the Dark Lord in the Harry Potter Series) never even mentioned aloud during public discussions of different types of generation, which is why radioactive waste (☢W) will continue to haunt the entire nuclear industry. To be clear, all the problems associated with long term ☢W storage includes the many CENTURIES of storage that ☢W requires, the cost of which is even now increasing used to point out that new NNP’s just do not not pencil out in todays Energy generation market place. Left completely unsaid, until almost exactly 3 years ago, is the fact that nuclear generation’s cost is also based upon the HOPE that nothing goes BAD, because if that happens for any reason, as Fukushima has proven, then “all bets are off” at which time the cost of one or more NPP could easily result in a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster or far worse!

I neglected to mention this Finnish nuclear project, which may be of interest to those readers following the ‘rebound’ in Europe. Ken http://www.energypost.eu/rosatom-signs-contract-build-nuclear-plant-fennovoima-finland/ Source: EnergyPost

We are far from achieving our environmental goal of limiting increases in average world temperature. Bolder and more innovative efforts are required, and nuclear energy can and must be part of the solution. Nuclear power is a quasi-domestic source that gives stable power, operates inexpensively and has a low greenhouse gas profile. nuclear energy has also been of significant help to humanity. Nuclear energy aids in many medical procedures, such as nuclear MRI technology. Furthermore, the nuclear energy produced in nuclear power plants provides power for countless people in many countries, while reducing the need of ozone-depleting fossil fuels.

Partially correct Nasir, but why did you forget to mention all the negative effects of using NPP, from the cradle (aka mining) to the grave (aka centuries of ☢ Waste storage), which make using NPP less than GREEN?

We all need to start providing fair balanced descriptions of generation technologies if we are to have an educational discussion, which as Scientists we should all insist upon, since accurate Data is our bread and butter!

why did you forget to mention all the negative effects of using NPP, from the cradle (aka mining) to the grave (aka centuries of ☢ Waste storage), which make using NPP less than GREEN?

(not so) Strangely, you presume that whatever meets your definition of “GREEN” is the best prescription for the environment.

First, so-called “renewables” require mining vastly greater quantities of material, for steel and aluminum and concrete. Germany is even strip-mining its forests for “biomass”. Those negative effects are huge, and disturb many times the fraction of the biosphere affected by nuclear power.

Second, your clever construction “☢ Waste” presumes there is no other kind of waste. Many solar panels contain cadmium, which is “☠ Waste”. Others contain arsenic, also a “☠ Waste”. Unlike nuclear energy, these are spread all over the landscape where they will be released in e.g. building fires. Unlike radioisotopes, these toxic heavy metals are poisonous FOREVER.

Last, small releases of nuclear materials are harmless to the environment. The Japanese long ago went back and rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have gone back to Chernobyl and are going back to Fukushima. They show no ill effects. Contrast this to the effectively permanent loss of coastal cities, plains and river deltas from climate-change-induced sea level rise. We could have a Fukushima disaster every year with a Chernobyl on top, and not come within 1% of the damage we’d sustain from rising oceans. That doesn’t even count ocean acidification, changed rainfall patterns, and the rest.

If you were a global environment safety educator, you’d be forced to tell the nuclear safety educators that people are better off accepting greater nuclear risks to avoid messing with the climate.

“Environmentalists” talk about how renewables are cheaper (and “faster”) than nuclear, but they are never willing to put it to the test.

If they really believed that, they would be willing to have nuclear and renewables be treated exactly the same under all policies. That is equal subsidies, feed-in tarriffs similar to any given to renewables, loans given on equal terms, and (most importantly) including nuclear in any and all portfolio standards. They shouldn’t mind since they (supposedly) believe that even under such a level playing field, no nuclear would be built anyway.

But they never support anything remotely like that, and instead insist on massive subsidies and/or mandates for renewables only. That pretty much says it all.

They also like to compare nuclear to fossil fuels (not renewables), when arguing that nuclear is uncompetitive. That is, fossil fuels that are allowed to freely and continually pollute the environment (inflicting massive health, environmental, and climate impacts) for free, whereas nuclear is required to go to the ends of the earth (and spare no expense) to reduce even a tiny likelihood of releasing pollution, to lower and lower levels. If nuclear ever does emit any pollution, massive compansation and cleanup efforts are demanded.

That (nuclear vs. fossil) playing field isn’t even remotely level. It’s literally a black and white double standard. Estimates of fossil fuels external (i.e., health and environmental) costs would more than double their price. A level playing field would, at a minimum charge fossil fuel plants large fees (taxes) on their pollution. At a maximum, they would treat fossil plants like nuclear and simply disallow any pollution at all (full capture and indefinite storage of all wastes/toxins, including CO2). Under such requirements; such a playing field, nuclear would have no trouble at all competing.

“Environmentalists” talk about how renewables are cheaper (and “faster”) than nuclear, but they are never willing to put it to the test.

If they really believed that, they would be willing to have nuclear and renewables be treated exactly the same under all policies. That is equal subsidies, feed-in tarriffs similar to any given to renewables, loans given on equal terms, and (most importantly) including nuclear in any and all portfolio standards. They shouldn’t mind since they (supposedly) believe that even under such a level playing field, no nuclear would be built anyway.

But they never support anything remotely like that, and instead insist on massive subsidies and/or mandates for renewables only. That pretty much says it all.

They also like to compare nuclear to fossil fuels (not renewables), when arguing that nuclear is uncompetitive. That is, fossil fuels that are allowed to freely and continually pollute the environment (inflicting massive health, environmental, and climate impacts) for free, whereas nuclear is required to go to the ends of the earth (and spare no expense) to reduce even a tiny likelihood of releasing pollution, to lower and lower levels. If nuclear ever does emit any pollution, massive compensation and cleanup efforts are demanded.

That (nuclear vs. fossil) playing field isn’t even remotely level. It’s literally a black and white double standard. Estimates of fossil fuels external (i.e., health and environmental) costs would more than double their price. A level playing field would, at a minimum charge fossil fuel plants large fees (taxes) on their pollution. At a maximum, they would treat fossil plants like nuclear and simply disallow any pollution at all (full capture and indefinite storage of all wastes/toxins, including CO2). Under such requirements; such a playing field, nuclear would have no trouble at all competing.

The exclusion zone around Pripyat Ukraine is over 1,000 square miles. Almost half a million people have been permanently displaced—-and a city of over 50,000 population was abandoned in toto, not to mention many, many other smaller towns and villages.

The exclusion zone around the Fukushima site encompasses roughly 450 square miles, and over 80,000 people are still refuges—unable to return to their homes, three years later. Radiation leaks and control efforts to stop the leaks continue, and are not proving to be effective. It may become necessary to widen the exclusion zone in the future.

Nuclear power is not cheap. Figure out the cost of paying for the permanent destruction of 1,000 square miles of urban property(as some nuclear power plants have become the centers of urban sprawl). The cost of incentive subsidies to renewable energy are mere pocket change by comparison.

You as a taxpayer are on the hook to pay the bill for the damages caused by a major malfunction.

People in Japan are being kept out (and in limbo) needlessly, to a significant extent. Also, the basis behind the evacuation policies is that no significant exposure, and no significant health risk, is tolerable (for nuclear, and nuclear only). If we applied similar criteria to coal, huge areas (e.g., much of the Eastern seaboard of the US, downwind from US coal plants) would also be declared “uninhabitable”.

But we don’t… There is a double standard. If they treated nuclear like fossil fuels, i.e., if they ignored everything and just had people to continue to live in all those areas, around Fukushima, there would be health impacts, possibly thousands of eventual deaths, but that is less than the deaths worldwide fossil-fueled power generation causes every single week! And this, from the only significant release of pollution in non-Soviet nuclear’s entire history.

I concur that in the event of a nuclear accident/release, the utility (or industry in general) should be required to buy up all the land that has dose rates above the range of natural background. That should be categorized as a land use requirement for nuclear (i.e., occupying that much land, somewhere in the world, every ~50 years or so, in the event of a significant release). Of course that land area would shrink significantly over a period of years….

You may be surprised, however, to learn that nuclear’s overall land area requirements, per kW-hr generated, would still be less than that of renewables. I acknowledge that renewables projects DO have to procure land, and that is part of their (relatively high) price. For nuclear, the price would be much smaller.

Fukushima is estimated to cost on the order of ~$100 billion. The cost of buying any affected land area is on that order (esp. given that nuclear plants are intentionally sited in remote areas). If you divide that $100 billion cost by the ~100 trillion kW-hrs that non-Soviet nuclear has generated in the last several decades, you get an “accident cost” on the order of 0.1 cents/kW-hr (i.e., not enough to have any significant impact on nuclear’s overall price). The cost of any land purchase, in the rare event of a meltdown, would not significantly affect the cost of nuclear.

Renewables subsidies are orders of magnitude larger than the ~0.1 cent/kW-hr accident liability “cost” of nuclear (even with the effects of “useless” land area factored in). Feed in tariffs in Europe were sometimes on the order of 50 cents/kW-hr (for solar, anyway).

Your statement about expanding the evacuation area is ludicrous. Radiation levels are falling, in the areas around Fukushima. Despite all the hype, ongoing releases are miniscule compared to the release from the initial event (i.e., over the first week after the tsunami). Virtually all land contamination, and any public exposure, is due to the initial release. The area with radiation levels above the natural range is shrinking significantly, due to radioactive decay, cleanup efforts, and natural dispersal.

If the point of Renewables and Nuclear power (both) are sto eliminate CO2 in the production of Electricity, then Renewables in Germany and everywhere else are a failure.

The author of this post needs to do be more informed. Renewables without storage require the use of Natural Gas or Coal to balance them and provide power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun is not shinning. Nuclear power has no such requirement.

Not only are renewables expensive, but they can’t do the job for which they were commissioned in the first place, so what’s the point?

—–” Renewables without storage require the use of Natural Gas or Coal to balance them and provide power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun is not shinning. Nuclear power has no such requirement.”——-

This is not true. Turning off unused lights requires no storage at all, it also requires no gas, coal, oil or nuclear. So does replacing incandescent bulbs with LED—-that can provide the same amount of light using only a fraction of the energy. So does the recovery of lost heat energy and recycling——you know those big hour glass shaped concrete towers outside both coal and nuclear power plants? Those are cooling towers, the whole purpose is to dissipate heat from steam generated by the boilers and used to make steam for the generators. That heat that is dissipated is lost energy—-and in most cases, it is more energy than the electrical output of the plant, MUCH more, like 2X as much in most cases. That energy can be recovered and recycled. It is called CHP(combined heat and power).

——” Not only are renewables expensive, but they can’t do the job for which they were commissioned in the first place, so what’s the point?”—–

I have never met a video game or a hairdryer that cared in the least where the electricity it eats came from—-it just gobbles it down like a pit bull would a sausage—wind turbine, solar panel, nuclear power plant……………..it’s all the same.

Fossil fuels and nuclear power require massive amounts of fresh water in order to be useful. Wind and solar do not require any water at all.

Fossil fuels and nuclear destroy the life sustaining qualities of the environment, both in acquisition and in use. Wind and solar do not.

Mankind survived for thousands of years without electricity. You can not survive for three days without water.

We can easily have the electricity and power that we have come to depend on, and we can have clean water and a healthy ecosystem. But we can not do it using 200 year old slash and burn technology. The world has gotten too small for that. We need to replace our old, destructive technologies with renewable and sustainable technologies that will carry us safely and comfortably into the future.

BTW—not all renewable energy depends on the wind or sunlight. Geothermal energy is available 24/7 and is actually more dependable than either fossil fuels or nuclear.

My Dear Sirs: My name is Kris Kuehl. I am merely one man. I don’t want your money. I want to give you my invention that you can make too. There’s no patent on it. First one to get a patent shall be the inventor. I’m not a business. You do have my expressed consent to build one for yourself. I just want the world to accept my gift for free. It only cost me about 777.00 dollars to make. It generates free electricity forever, without the need for oil, gasoline, friction, pollution, a supercollision, NOR IRAN. I’m trying to tell you to start engineering “living” cars using my technology, to save yourselves from building charging stations. Here’s How: F r e e E l e c t r i c i t y………..um forever and i prove it. 1. A 12amp car battery from wal-mart 2. A power inverter to plug step 3 into it. 3. A skilsaw circular saw that spins at least 3600 rpms. If the powersaw is too loud, try www.leesonmotors.com to get a quiet electric motor but you’ll need to get an online 40amp tractor battery to power it, and it would have to be pulley driven, unless we can all convince leeson motors to bore a 5/8 inch thread hole in the axle. 4. A 5/8 inch axle bolt. 5. A generator head from www.northerntool.com part no. 165913 or 165928 for dryers and house needs. 6. A battery recharger from wal-mart. Simply link those components together in that order and back into the battery, and everyone shall have infinite free electricity. PLEASE visit my website to see video evidence. I also have other SIGNIFICANT scientific discoveries there. Bless you, and I hope you have a very casual day! Sincerely,